Conservatives Favoring Dean Getting the Nomination
Basic argument is that stark choices are good for America and a choice between Bush and Dean in 2004 represents a true stark choice.
Key quote -
Regardless, stark choices are good for politics and for people who write about politics. Dean has promised or strongly suggested that he wants to reregulate big business, raise tariffs, go a long way toward socializing medicine, scrap any initiatives toward privatization, raise taxes on everybody, including the middle class, and entrench quota-style affirmative action.
And, most significant, at a moment when national security is of monumental importance, Dean has adopted a "do the opposite of George" foreign policy. If Bush is for it, Dean must be against it.
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Stanford Students - Anybody interested in Skiing?
SnowBomb.com has bus trips to Tahoe for cheap amounts. What's cool about it is you can do your work for the four and a half hours each way during the trip and actually have a good study day (tried it last year and got about three weeks ahead in ConLaw). Oh yeah, you get to ski.
SnowBomb.com has bus trips to Tahoe for cheap amounts. What's cool about it is you can do your work for the four and a half hours each way during the trip and actually have a good study day (tried it last year and got about three weeks ahead in ConLaw). Oh yeah, you get to ski.
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
Hold Hollywood Hostage to Kill Farm Subsidies?
Prof. Lessig has a fun little piece here.
I think the Professor is right in arguing that the way to free trade is to pit different business lobbyists against each other. Industries (steel, sugar, textiles, etc.) that can exclude their competition through protectionist arguments that appeal to both the hard right and the hard left have too much of an interest (and the rest of us are not paying enough attention because the loss is to spread out) to rig the market in their favor. The best watchdog in the end are the other industries that have the prices of their inputs go up as a result of these tactics (maybe auto companies? construction companies?) or companies that will be affected by retalatory tariffs from other countries. Besides that, I think the only long term method of securing free trade would to simply bribe the workers that would otherwise lose their jobs. Take either the salary they earn after the trade deal or the salary that we think they should expect to earn (to prevent over consumption of leisure), whichever is lesser, and the difference between that number and their old salary (before the trade deal) should be given to workers as a bribe for a fixed number of years. Obviously, this would be a blatant payoff to a group that was receiving economic rent beforehand, but since they have the power to kill an otherwise lucrative trade deal and we as a nation would still be ahead economically on the deal, I would be for this as a last-resort to protect free-trade.
Prof. Lessig has a fun little piece here.
I think the Professor is right in arguing that the way to free trade is to pit different business lobbyists against each other. Industries (steel, sugar, textiles, etc.) that can exclude their competition through protectionist arguments that appeal to both the hard right and the hard left have too much of an interest (and the rest of us are not paying enough attention because the loss is to spread out) to rig the market in their favor. The best watchdog in the end are the other industries that have the prices of their inputs go up as a result of these tactics (maybe auto companies? construction companies?) or companies that will be affected by retalatory tariffs from other countries. Besides that, I think the only long term method of securing free trade would to simply bribe the workers that would otherwise lose their jobs. Take either the salary they earn after the trade deal or the salary that we think they should expect to earn (to prevent over consumption of leisure), whichever is lesser, and the difference between that number and their old salary (before the trade deal) should be given to workers as a bribe for a fixed number of years. Obviously, this would be a blatant payoff to a group that was receiving economic rent beforehand, but since they have the power to kill an otherwise lucrative trade deal and we as a nation would still be ahead economically on the deal, I would be for this as a last-resort to protect free-trade.
Dirty Bomb on New Years
MSNBC.com is leading with a story that the major fear on New Year's was a dirty bomb going off in Times Square, which is related to my early post about New Year's in Time Square. Eventually one of these things are going to get through our countermeasures - even if our countermeasures are foolproof (which they are not), there will come a point when somebody is lax guarding the defensive measures. At that point, what happens? What happens if a second one goes off? At some point, we may become desensitized to large scale casualties. Obviously, this would have effects that would reverberate much more than 9/11 to our foreign policy, our economy, the way we live out our lives.
In terms of our foreign policy though, it is not clear to me how a series of events worse than 9/11 would change the we conduct it. On one hand, our isolationist tendencies might dramatically increase, which is of course what the point behind these attacks are. On the other hand, large scale attacks would not only enrage us, but desensitize us to the possibility of grand amounts of bloodshed, causing the public to be much less risk averse with respect to wars abroad. Any thoughts?
MSNBC.com is leading with a story that the major fear on New Year's was a dirty bomb going off in Times Square, which is related to my early post about New Year's in Time Square. Eventually one of these things are going to get through our countermeasures - even if our countermeasures are foolproof (which they are not), there will come a point when somebody is lax guarding the defensive measures. At that point, what happens? What happens if a second one goes off? At some point, we may become desensitized to large scale casualties. Obviously, this would have effects that would reverberate much more than 9/11 to our foreign policy, our economy, the way we live out our lives.
In terms of our foreign policy though, it is not clear to me how a series of events worse than 9/11 would change the we conduct it. On one hand, our isolationist tendencies might dramatically increase, which is of course what the point behind these attacks are. On the other hand, large scale attacks would not only enrage us, but desensitize us to the possibility of grand amounts of bloodshed, causing the public to be much less risk averse with respect to wars abroad. Any thoughts?
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Pakistani Columnist at Northwestern urges Republicans to vote for Dean
The guy is actually pro-bush. His logic follows the CW which says that Dean is unelectable, so if you want a pro-bush victory, get Dean. What is interesting about this is that while quite a few Democrats crossed lines to vote in the Republican primary for McCain in 2000, there hasn't been a peep among any of the Democratic Contenders urging Republicans to do the same this election cycle. Perhaps Republican support of a Democrat is more damning in Republican circles than Democrat support of a Republican is in Republican circles?
The guy is actually pro-bush. His logic follows the CW which says that Dean is unelectable, so if you want a pro-bush victory, get Dean. What is interesting about this is that while quite a few Democrats crossed lines to vote in the Republican primary for McCain in 2000, there hasn't been a peep among any of the Democratic Contenders urging Republicans to do the same this election cycle. Perhaps Republican support of a Democrat is more damning in Republican circles than Democrat support of a Republican is in Republican circles?
Monday, January 05, 2004
Why are many Universities against a College Football Playoff?
After LSU's victory last night, we appear to be heading towards a split national championship. If there had been a playoff system in lieu of the bowl system that we have now, this would not be an issue, however there has been historic resistance to the idea, notwithstanding the recent effort by several college presidents to pressure the BCS via congress and antitrust threats. CNN money has a slightly dated article that provides some background on the matter
Key quote -
The 63 schools in the BCS not only keep $111.4 million of the $118 million paid out by the four big-money BCS bowls -- the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange bowls -- they also get the lion's share of the rest of the money -- about $53 million for grabbing 32 of the 48 spots open in the non-BCS bowls.
That leaves crumbs -- about $14 million to be spread among the other 54 1A schools not in the BCS conferences in order to have 16 teams from those conferences go to bowls, plus about $4.5 million that those conferences get from BCS.
However, perhaps there is something else at play too - as another article by the author alludes to
Key quote
But the real force against a playoff is that teams, which know they will likely never play for a championship, feel it's in their interest to maintain the wide range of secondary bowls. There are enough bowls today that most teams with a winning record can get a bowl bid. There is a strong, probably justifiable fear that most of these lesser bowls would disappear if the BCS or National Collegiate Athletic Association were to set up a playoff system. And these second-tier football programs control the various conferences through their sheer numbers.
"A playoff would be disastrous for the (other) bowls," said Trangese. "The bowl system is not going away. It's too valuable to us."
Going to a bowl is important to a lot of schools that won't make the top bowls for other reasons as the second article later implies
But the football programs that have suffered through a 6-5 or 7-4 season feel they need to have a bowl bid as a way to thank staff and players, satisfy and woo alumni, and recruit future players.
After LSU's victory last night, we appear to be heading towards a split national championship. If there had been a playoff system in lieu of the bowl system that we have now, this would not be an issue, however there has been historic resistance to the idea, notwithstanding the recent effort by several college presidents to pressure the BCS via congress and antitrust threats. CNN money has a slightly dated article that provides some background on the matter
Key quote -
The 63 schools in the BCS not only keep $111.4 million of the $118 million paid out by the four big-money BCS bowls -- the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange bowls -- they also get the lion's share of the rest of the money -- about $53 million for grabbing 32 of the 48 spots open in the non-BCS bowls.
That leaves crumbs -- about $14 million to be spread among the other 54 1A schools not in the BCS conferences in order to have 16 teams from those conferences go to bowls, plus about $4.5 million that those conferences get from BCS.
However, perhaps there is something else at play too - as another article by the author alludes to
Key quote
But the real force against a playoff is that teams, which know they will likely never play for a championship, feel it's in their interest to maintain the wide range of secondary bowls. There are enough bowls today that most teams with a winning record can get a bowl bid. There is a strong, probably justifiable fear that most of these lesser bowls would disappear if the BCS or National Collegiate Athletic Association were to set up a playoff system. And these second-tier football programs control the various conferences through their sheer numbers.
"A playoff would be disastrous for the (other) bowls," said Trangese. "The bowl system is not going away. It's too valuable to us."
Going to a bowl is important to a lot of schools that won't make the top bowls for other reasons as the second article later implies
But the football programs that have suffered through a 6-5 or 7-4 season feel they need to have a bowl bid as a way to thank staff and players, satisfy and woo alumni, and recruit future players.
Sunday, January 04, 2004
Looks like the "religion of peace" mantra is still a hard sell in the Muslim community.
Yahoo! News - Muslim Youths Change Football Team Names: "IRVINE, Calif. - After objections to team names like 'Soldiers of Allah' and 'Moujahideen' overshadowed a football tournament organized by Muslim youths, the players sacked most of the offending names and took to the field to more cheers than protests. "
Yahoo! News - Muslim Youths Change Football Team Names: "IRVINE, Calif. - After objections to team names like 'Soldiers of Allah' and 'Moujahideen' overshadowed a football tournament organized by Muslim youths, the players sacked most of the offending names and took to the field to more cheers than protests. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
